Palin to resign

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Again, I'm not talking about what everyone THINKS will happen, I'm asking who has noticed a TRUE direct effect from president to president, year to year...

A lot of what happens to affect our daily lives depends on the Congress + President. Normally there isn't a supermajority and most direct change that we see (other than tax rates) is slowed or tempered by the minority party in Congress. But to your question....

Carter - I was 10-13 while he was in office. I remember sitting in gas lines, my parents being very worried about money, and the Iranian hostage crisis. At the time it was OK to outwardly hate the Iranian terrorists that took our people hostage (there were many action movies made around the terrorist premise, Delta Force w/Chuck Norris was classic) Now, 9/11 happens and it's wrong to profile airline passengers along demographics of the terrorists/murderers. So we have TSA and I get to go through the airport and watch little old ladies get wanded and almost strip searched....but I digress.

Reagan - Reagan's freeing of the hostages turned the mood of the country around, Americans were proud again (shining city on a hill). There was the worry of nuclear war (Terminator movies). Reagan's policies took a while but they turned the economy around and led to good economic times. I was in the military stationed in Japan so I didn't realize the effects directly. The direct effects of his foreign policy weren't felt until the Berlin Wall came down under Bush 1.

Bush 1 - The Gulf War was executed perfectly and although many of us said "go to Baghdad", Bush 1 did the right thing. Other than that, not much affect from Bush that I remember.

Clinton - There was the Lewinsky scandal. The government shutdown was bad for me as I was working for a Fed Gov't contractor at the time. If Clinton would've taken Bin Laden when he was served up we wouldn't have had 9/11 (that's not to say another terrorist wouldn't have created a different attack later).

Bush 2 - TSA (Thousands Standing Around). There are better solutions IMO than this massive agency. Everytime we get airborne we get to be up close and personal with the Fed gov't. The Bush Admin was successful in keeping us safe from addtional attacks though. The Afghanistan and Iraq Wars definitely had an affect on us all. The 2000 election dispute was pretty interesting and kept us glued to the news about hanging/dimpled chads.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

A lot of what happens to affect our daily lives depends on the Congress + President. Normally there isn't a supermajority and most direct change that we see (other than tax rates) is slowed or tempered by the minority party in Congress. But to your question....

Carter - I was 10-13 while he was in office. I remember sitting in gas lines, my parents being very worried about money, and the Iranian hostage crisis. At the time it was OK to outwardly hate the Iranian terrorists that took our people hostage (there were many action movies made around the terrorist premise, Delta Force w/Chuck Norris was classic) Now, 9/11 happens and it's wrong to profile airline passengers along demographics of the terrorists/murderers. So we have TSA and I get to go through the airport and watch little old ladies get wanded and almost strip searched....but I digress.

Reagan - Reagan's freeing of the hostages turned the mood of the country around, Americans were proud again (shining city on a hill). There was the worry of nuclear war (Terminator movies). Reagan's policies took a while but they turned the economy around and led to good economic times. I was in the military stationed in Japan so I didn't realize the effects directly. The direct effects of his foreign policy weren't felt until the Berlin Wall came down under Bush 1.

Bush 1 - The Gulf War was executed perfectly and although many of us said "go to Baghdad", Bush 1 did the right thing. Other than that, not much affect from Bush that I remember.

Clinton - There was the Lewinsky scandal. The government shutdown was bad for me as I was working for a Fed Gov't contractor at the time. If Clinton would've taken Bin Laden when he was served up we wouldn't have had 9/11 (that's not to say another terrorist wouldn't have created a different attack later).

Bush 2 - TSA (Thousands Standing Around). There are better solutions IMO than this massive agency. Everytime we get airborne we get to be up close and personal with the Fed gov't. The Bush Admin was successful in keeping us safe from addtional attacks though. The Afghanistan and Iraq Wars definitely had an affect on us all. The 2000 election dispute was pretty interesting and kept us glued to the news about hanging/dimpled chads.

...........

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

A lot of what happens to affect our daily lives depends on the Congress + President. Normally there isn't a supermajority and most direct change that we see (other than tax rates) is slowed or tempered by the minority party in Congress. But to your question....

Carter - I was 10-13 while he was in office. I remember sitting in gas lines, my parents being very worried about money, and the Iranian hostage crisis. At the time it was OK to outwardly hate the Iranian terrorists that took our people hostage (there were many action movies made around the terrorist premise, Delta Force w/Chuck Norris was classic) Now, 9/11 happens and it's wrong to profile airline passengers along demographics of the terrorists/murderers. So we have TSA and I get to go through the airport and watch little old ladies get wanded and almost strip searched....but I digress.

Reagan - Reagan's freeing of the hostages turned the mood of the country around, Americans were proud again (shining city on a hill). There was the worry of nuclear war (Terminator movies). Reagan's policies took a while but they turned the economy around and led to good economic times. I was in the military stationed in Japan so I didn't realize the effects directly. The direct effects of his foreign policy weren't felt until the Berlin Wall came down under Bush 1.

Bush 1 - The Gulf War was executed perfectly and although many of us said "go to Baghdad", Bush 1 did the right thing. Other than that, not much affect from Bush that I remember.

Clinton - There was the Lewinsky scandal. The government shutdown was bad for me as I was working for a Fed Gov't contractor at the time. If Clinton would've taken Bin Laden when he was served up we wouldn't have had 9/11 (that's not to say another terrorist wouldn't have created a different attack later).

Bush 2 - TSA (Thousands Standing Around). There are better solutions IMO than this massive agency. Everytime we get airborne we get to be up close and personal with the Fed gov't. The Bush Admin was successful in keeping us safe from addtional attacks though. The Afghanistan and Iraq Wars definitely had an affect on us all. The 2000 election dispute was pretty interesting and kept us glued to the news about hanging/dimpled chads.

Good post. I would also add that events are not isolated to Presidential terms, which seems to be a somewhat common misconception. The Bin Laden situation, you can date that back to at least Carter. Iraq-Iran back to Eisenhower (I think).

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

A lot of what happens to affect our daily lives depends on the Congress + President. Normally there isn't a supermajority and most direct change that we see (other than tax rates) is slowed or tempered by the minority party in Congress. But to your question....

Carter - I was 10-13 while he was in office. I remember sitting in gas lines, my parents being very worried about money, and the Iranian hostage crisis. At the time it was OK to outwardly hate the Iranian terrorists that took our people hostage (there were many action movies made around the terrorist premise, Delta Force w/Chuck Norris was classic) Now, 9/11 happens and it's wrong to profile airline passengers along demographics of the terrorists/murderers. So we have TSA and I get to go through the airport and watch little old ladies get wanded and almost strip searched....but I digress.

Reagan - Reagan's freeing of the hostages turned the mood of the country around, Americans were proud again (shining city on a hill). There was the worry of nuclear war (Terminator movies). Reagan's policies took a while but they turned the economy around and led to good economic times. I was in the military stationed in Japan so I didn't realize the effects directly. The direct effects of his foreign policy weren't felt until the Berlin Wall came down under Bush 1.

Bush 1 - The Gulf War was executed perfectly and although many of us said "go to Baghdad", Bush 1 did the right thing. Other than that, not much affect from Bush that I remember.

Clinton - There was the Lewinsky scandal. The government shutdown was bad for me as I was working for a Fed Gov't contractor at the time. If Clinton would've taken Bin Laden when he was served up we wouldn't have had 9/11 (that's not to say another terrorist wouldn't have created a different attack later).

Bush 2 - TSA (Thousands Standing Around). There are better solutions IMO than this massive agency. Everytime we get airborne we get to be up close and personal with the Fed gov't. The Bush Admin was successful in keeping us safe from addtional attacks though. The Afghanistan and Iraq Wars definitely had an affect on us all. The 2000 election dispute was pretty interesting and kept us glued to the news about hanging/dimpled chads.

LOL....that sad part is Reagan had a worse budget deficit spending problems than Obama but you seem to see his spending as an asset yet when Obama does it it's going to be the end of us all. Maybe, just maybe "Obama's policies [take] a while but [they'll turn] the economy around and [lead] to good economic times?"

Even worse, Obama gets flack for talking to the Russians in implementing a "do as I do" policy and supporting a democratically elected president who was ousted by a military coup d'etat (I really can't remember the last time a military coup was a good thing) but Reagan with his Iran Contra Affair made America feel good again.

Weak, very weak!

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

LOL....that sad part is Reagan had a worse budget deficit spending problems than Obama but you seem to see his spending as an asset yet when Obama does it it's going to be the end of us all. Maybe, just maybe "Obama's policies [take] a while but [they'll turn] the economy around and [lead] to good economic times?"

Even worse, Obama gets flack for talking to the Russians in implementing a "do as I do" policy and supporting a democratically elected president who was ousted by a military coup d'etat (I really can't remember the last time a military coup was a good thing) but Reagan with his Iran Contra Affair made America feel good again.

Weak, very weak!

That Coup was ousting a president that was breaking the election rules/laws and the supreme court and their congress had him removed. He was trying to become a dictator.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

LOL....that sad part is Reagan had a worse budget deficit spending problems than Obama but you seem to see his spending as an asset yet when Obama does it it's going to be the end of us all. Maybe, just maybe "Obama's policies [take] a while but [they'll turn] the economy around and [lead] to good economic times?"

Even worse, Obama gets flack for talking to the Russians in implementing a "do as I do" policy and supporting a democratically elected president who was ousted by a military coup d'etat (I really can't remember the last time a military coup was a good thing) but Reagan with his Iran Contra Affair made America feel good again.

Weak, very weak!

What's weak my friend, is your analysis here. Reagan cut taxes and allowed the free market to work, Obama is increasing taxes and increasing gov't control/intervention in the economy. This economic strategy does not improve an economy. Instead of spending $ 4 per week on the Mega Millions lottery, I'll spend $ 400 per week and maybe, just maybe, I'll win.

Here's some facts about the economy under Reagan:
-During the Reagan presidency, an average of 1.7 million jobs
per year were created, as opposed to only 1.2 million jobs per
year from 1990-95 (Cato Institute Analysis No.261; Economic
Report of the President, 1996)
-When Reagan took office the unemployment rate was 7.6%. When he
left office the unemployment rate was 5.5% (Cato Institute
Analysis No.261; Economic Report of the President, 1996)
-Charitable contributions increased 57% during the 80s, from $65
billion in 1980 to $100 million in 1989 (American Enterprise,
Sept-Oct ’91)
-The rate of U.S. manufacturing productivity tripled during the
1980s (U.S. Commerce Department)
-The Stock Market rose from 777 to 3,000 points during Reagan’s
presidency, even after the crash of 1987. (Almanac of U.S.
History)
-The national deficit was approx. 2.6% of the U.S. GNP when
Reagan entered office, and only 2.8% of the GNP when he left
(Congressional Budget Office) All while bankrupting and bringing down the Soviet Union.
-Middle class families earning between $20,000-$50,000/year had
a 28% growth in net worth during Reagan’s time in office
(National Review, April 18, 1994)
-Inflation went down during Reagan’s time in office. In 1980 the
CPI (Consumer Price Index) was 13.5, and in 1984 it dropped to
4.3, and eventually to 4.1 by 1988. (Economic Report of the
President, January, 1993)
-In 1981, the beginning of Reagan’s presidency, the top 5% of
wage earners paid 35% of federal income taxes, while the bottom
50% paid 8%. By 1988, the end of Reagan’s presidency, the top
5% paid 46% of the federal taxes, while the bottom 50% paid 6%
(Joint Economic Committee, 1990) A rising tide lifts all boats.

-20 million new jobs were created during the Reagan presidency
(U.S. Statistical Abstract)
Of these 20 million new jobs:
-The average hourly wage was $10/hr.
-46.1% were over $28,048/yr, and another 46.2% were from
$7,012-$28,048/yr, while only 6% were under $7,012/yr.

-During the Carter administration (1977-80), of the new jobs
created, 41,77% were under $7,012, 68.2% were in the $7,012-
$28,048/yr bracket, and 9.9% of the pre-existing jobs in the
$28,048 and up bracket were actually lost (Joint Economic
Committee, based on data from Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S.
Department of Labor)

I never said Iran/Contra made people fell better, but getting the hostages home was the right thing to do. According to the special prosecutor, Reagan was found not involved in any wrong-doing.
-Lawrence Welsh, special prosecutor of the Iran-Contra scandal,
concluded that Ronald Reagan was not responsible for any
deflection of funds to the Contras or otherwise (D’Souza,
Ronald Reagan…p. 204)

The Russians don't keep their word and only negotiate what's in their best interest, not ours. Putin is an old Cold warrior. They won't reduce their nuclear arsenal and we'll never be able to verify it anyway. Also, as firstdown mentioned, Zelaya was trying to seize more power in violation of the Honduran constitution, courts and congress. The coup was approved by the other branches of the Honduran gov't.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

What's weak my friend, is your analysis here. Reagan cut taxes and allowed the free market to work, Obama is increasing taxes and increasing gov't control/intervention in the economy. This economic strategy does not improve an economy. Instead of spending $ 4 per week on the Mega Millions lottery, I'll spend $ 400 per week and maybe, just maybe, I'll win.

You're back to ideology and we done beat that horse to death. One would hope you realize however that you're evaluating Reagan not at a specific time frame (i.e. 1981) but for the entire duration of his presidency (see usage of 80s in your numbers) and that you would offer the same courtesy to this new administration. It is not gentlemanly to label him a failure this early.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Here's some facts about the economy under Reagan:
-During the Reagan presidency, an average of 1.7 million jobs
per year were created, as opposed to only 1.2 million jobs per
year from 1990-95 (Cato Institute Analysis No.261; Economic
Report of the President, 1996)

It would be interesting to compare job creation over the entire period of Clinton's presidency to that of Reagan.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

-When Reagan took office the unemployment rate was 7.6%. When he
left office the unemployment rate was 5.5% (Cato Institute
Analysis No.261; Economic Report of the President, 1996)
-Charitable contributions increased 57% during the 80s, from $65
billion in 1980 to $100 million in 1989 (American Enterprise,
Sept-Oct ’91)

This information means nothing in the absence to relative comparison (say, charitable giving increase during Carter and Clinton years). Charitable giving for 2008 is estimated to be ~300 billion. How did we perform during the Clinton years?

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

-The rate of U.S. manufacturing productivity tripled during the
1980s (U.S. Commerce Department)
-The Stock Market rose from 777 to 3,000 points during Reagan’s
presidency, even after the crash of 1987. (Almanac of U.S.
History)

Where are you getting your info from? Can you qualify what you're referencing? Are you talking about the DJI or are you just cutting and pasting info from the inter-web? Assuming you're talking about the DJI, when Reagan came in it was sitting at 867.15 and when he left it was 1,936.34. Contrast this with 3,254.03 when Clinton came in and 11,489.36 when he left (353% increase for Billyboy vs 223% for RR).

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

-The national deficit was approx. 2.6% of the U.S. GNP when
Reagan entered office, and only 2.8% of the GNP when he left
(Congressional Budget Office) All while bankrupting and bringing down the Soviet Union.
-Middle class families earning between $20,000-$50,000/year had
a 28% growth in net worth during Reagan’s time in office
(National Review, April 18, 1994)
-Inflation went down during Reagan’s time in office. In 1980 the
CPI (Consumer Price Index) was 13.5, and in 1984 it dropped to
4.3, and eventually to 4.1 by 1988. (Economic Report of the
President, January, 1993)
-In 1981, the beginning of Reagan’s presidency, the top 5% of
wage earners paid 35% of federal income taxes, while the bottom
50% paid 8%. By 1988, the end of Reagan’s presidency, the top
5% paid 46% of the federal taxes, while the bottom 50% paid 6%
(Joint Economic Committee, 1990) A rising tide lifts all boats.

It would be nice to see comparison to the Clinton years. All this tells me is what happened during his presidency not why his presidency is remarkable.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

-20 million new jobs were created during the Reagan presidency
(U.S. Statistical Abstract)
Of these 20 million new jobs:
-The average hourly wage was $10/hr.
-46.1% were over $28,048/yr, and another 46.2% were from
$7,012-$28,048/yr, while only 6% were under $7,012/yr.

-During the Carter administration (1977-80), of the new jobs
created, 41,77% were under $7,012, 68.2% were in the $7,012-
$28,048/yr bracket, and 9.9% of the pre-existing jobs in the
$28,048 and up bracket were actually lost (Joint Economic
Committee, based on data from Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S.
Department of Labor)

See if you can spot what's wrong with the above (there is more than one doggy thing in there).

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I never said Iran/Contra made people fell better, but getting the hostages home was the right thing to do. According to the special prosecutor, Reagan was found not involved in any wrong-doing.
-Lawrence Welsh, special prosecutor of the Iran-Contra scandal,
concluded that Ronald Reagan was not responsible for any
deflection of funds to the Contras or otherwise (D’Souza,
Ronald Reagan…p. 204)

You don't have to say that, you implied that the means are inconsequential so long as they're home. He might have been absolved of any wrong doing but that doesn't mean shady shit didn't go down. I understand though, he had to do what he had to do the first time around and the second time around. It's kinda sad though you don't give him any flack for signing the Algiers Accords and "capitulating" and "weakening the U.S."

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

The Russians don't keep their word and only negotiate what's in their best interest, not ours. Putin is an old Cold warrior. They won't reduce their nuclear arsenal and we'll never be able to verify it anyway. Also, as firstdown mentioned, Zelaya was trying to seize more power in violation of the Honduran constitution, courts and congress. The coup was approved by the other branches of the Honduran gov't.

Your boy RR helped create Osama Bin Laden but I don't see you mention this information anywhere when you blame Clinton. You're still on that cold war shit, people done moved on brother. That war has been won long ago and you don't need to be spending 50% of your budget on your military (see F-22 Wasteful). I'm no Zelaya fan but the entire world can't be wrong. You'll note that he wasn't impeached but removed based on a secret order from their Supreme Court. There's also the assumption that he is more corrupt than their other elect officials including their supreme court justices.


My father always told me to be honest in my workmanship because not doing so tends yields doggy results.


p.s. When you want to battle for real next time bring out the big guns.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

You're back to ideology and we done beat that horse to death. One would hope you realize however that you're evaluating Reagan not at a specific time frame (i.e. 1981) but for the entire duration of his presidency (see usage of 80s in your numbers) and that you would offer the same courtesy to this new administration. It is not gentlemanly to label him a failure this early.

You are absolutely correct about labeling the Obama Admin. We will not know if it's a success or failure until it's complete and we have a chance to review. However, the policies he's currently pursuing have historically been negative on an economy. I don't have time right now to post multiple links supporting this.

It would be interesting to compare job creation over the entire period of Clinton's presidency to that of Reagan.

This isn't a Reagan vs. Clinton issue. You were challenging Reagan's deficit spending and essentially his economic policies. IMO it isn't a point for debate that Reagan's policies resulted in helping the economy along to a great period of prosperity after the failed Carter Admin.

It's kinda sad though you don't give him any flack for signing the Algiers Accords and "capitulating" and "weakening the U.S."

Reagan had a great deal of time to evaluate and put his stamp on this agreement??? His inauguration was on Jan. 20, 1981. This agreement was primarily brokered by Warren Christopher, Deputy Sec of State under Carter.

Your boy RR helped create Osama Bin Laden but I don't see you mention this information anywhere when you blame Clinton.

funding Bin Laden and other rebel groups fighting the Soviets was part of the strategy that defeated the Soviet Union. (My enemy's enemy is my friend). Once any of these groups turned to terrorism against the U.S. they become our enemy and must be eliminated, Clinton didn't do that.

You're still on that cold war shit, people done moved on brother.

Putin hasn't.

That war has been won long ago and you don't need to be spending 50% of your budget on your military (see F-22 Wasteful).

I've worked in DoD contracting for several years and agree our defense budget can be reduced. However, slashing advanced weapons systems development is a mistake, it is our technology that make us the strongest military the world has ever seen and I go to sleep at night with no fear from invasion or attack by a foreign nation because we have by far the biggest stick.

YouTube - Famous Speeches: A Few Good Men

1:14 - 1:25 LOL

I'm no Zelaya fan but the entire world can't be wrong.

The OAS can be, it's currently a puppet organization controlled by Hugo Chavez.

My father always told me to be honest in my workmanship because not doing so tends yields doggy results.

Your father is a wise man.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

You are absolutely correct about labeling the Obama Admin. We will not know if it's a success or failure until it's complete and we have a chance to review. However, the policies he's currently pursuing have historically been negative on an economy. I don't have time right now to post multiple links supporting this.
This isn't a Reagan vs. Clinton issue. You were challenging Reagan's deficit spending and essentially his economic policies. IMO it isn't a point for debate that Reagan's policies resulted in helping the economy along to a great period of prosperity after the failed Carter Admin.

Reagan had a great deal of time to evaluate and put his stamp on this agreement??? His inauguration was on Jan. 20, 1981. This agreement was primarily brokered by Warren Christopher, Deputy Sec of State under Carter.

funding Bin Laden and other rebel groups fighting the Soviets was part of the strategy that defeated the Soviet Union. (My enemy's enemy is my friend). Once any of these groups turned to terrorism against the U.S. they become our enemy and must be eliminated, Clinton didn't do that.

Putin hasn't.

I've worked in DoD contracting for several years and agree our defense budget can be reduced. However, slashing advanced weapons systems development is a mistake, it is our technology that make us the strongest military the world has ever seen and I go to sleep at night with no fear from invasion or attack by a foreign nation because we have by far the biggest stick.

YouTube - Famous Speeches: A Few Good Men

1:14 - 1:25 LOL

The OAS can be, it's currently a puppet organization controlled by Hugo Chavez.

Your father is a wise man.

1. And you're post made several comparison to other administration and on top of that you knocked Obama's deficit spending in another post. I just want some fair and balance (not the Fox kind of course) .
2. If RR didn't have time to evaluate and put his stamp of approval on Algiers Accords why the hell does he get credit form you for freeing the hostages? Gotchya!!!
3. I see that you don't want to give your boy RR any Osama credit but deep down we all know he done f'ed up too. You can't cover shit with chocolate and call it chocolate fondue.
4. What has Putin done to demonstrate his cold war stripes?
5. Sleep tight my friend...1 trillion dollars in military spending does warm the cockles of a man's heart. I wonder how the Swedes sleep.
6. OAS is the new ACORN? Come on, Chavez might be the most vocal member the right wing knows about but the member with the biggest pull is us. We don't fund it and host host it for altruistic reasons.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

If RR didn't have time to evaluate and put his stamp of approval on Algiers Accords why the hell does he get credit form you for freeing the hostages? Gotchya!!!

Wrong - The Iranians knew Reagan would bring the full military might of the U.S. to bear to secure the release of the hostages, that's why they completed the deal with the Carter Admin.

from wiki: However, special ops personnel involved in the preparations for the second rescue attempt believed that incoming President Ronald Reagan was involved in the planning and timing of the second rescue attempt, and that these intentions were either implied or made known to the de facto Iranian government, leading to the hostages' release just minutes after Reagan's inauguration, and it is widely believed that Reagan capitalized on the "trigger happy" reputation he had been lambasted with during the 1980 campaign and used it to lead the Iranian leadership to believe that if they didn't release the hostages immediately upon his inauguration, Reagan's first act as President would be to bomb Iran's oil facilities, the main source of their nation's revenue, out of existence. [72][73]

- I see that you don't want to give your boy RR any Osama credit but deep down we all know he done f'ed up too.

Wrong again - I did state that Reagan provided funding for Bin Laden and other rebels/terrorist organizations and the reasons for that funding. We just disagree on whether it was a mistake or not.

- What has Putin done to demonstrate his cold war stripes?

You may want to read this, particularly the Presidency - Second Term section. You don't change a leopard's spots.

Vladimir Putin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

- Sleep tight my friend...1 trillion dollars in military spending does warm the cockles of a man's heart. I wonder how the Swedes sleep.

The actual DOD Budget is below: $653B, much of it for paying our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines and Operations / Maintenance. I know where you're coming up with the additional 300+B, but securing our nuclear arsenal and providing medical care to our veterans sure isn't on the same lines as "more bombs" and F-22s (which I agree is a waste with the F-35 on the horizon).

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy...et/defense.pdf

And I'm sure the Swedes sleeep pretty damn good knowing we are spending $ 653B and will come to save their hind-quarters if the Soviets or some other world power decides to get stupid.